Well, based on the reading I've done since this discussion began, I'd have to disagree. As far as I can tell, Marinol has several disadvantages when compared to "natural" marijuana. Increased possibility of unpleasant psychoactive effects (which seems to be the main reason that many patients dislike it), higher cost, and slow onset time seem to be big ones. Plus one of the main things that medical marijuana is used to treat is nausea, which is a problem for Marinol because it's a pill and thus the patient may puke it back up before it can take effect (this problem is compounded by the long onset time). I certainly don't disagree that Marinol has clear uses, but to claim that it's unambiguously superior to "natural" marijuana seems to clash with the facts.
EDIT: There also appears to be a fairly good argument that Marinol lacks some of the beneficial therapeutic effects of "natural" marijuana because "natural" marijuana may derive it's effects not just from THC itself, but from other compounds it contains such as cannibichromene and cannabidiol, which are not present in Marinol. Cannabidiol, for instance, is part of what makes marijuana a useful drug in the treatment for MS; so Marinol is not as useful as natural marijuana for MS sufferers.
As for the FDA question: I agree that the tobacco lobby obviously packs a lot more clout than the legalize-weed lobby does; nevertheless, my point stands. The standards by which the FDA regulates products differ from one class of products to the next, and are set by statute for each class of products. They don't hold everything to the same standard of harmfulness; fresh fruits/vegetable, canned foods, cereal products, pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements, tobacco, etc. are all subject to different sets of regulations with different requirements and allowances, some much stricter than others (obviously tobacco is permitted to contain substances that are NOT allowed in food products!). So the way in which marijuana is regulated by the FDA if/when it's legalized will depend entirely on the content of the statutes by which Congress grants the FDA authority to regulate marijuana. It's not like marijuana will automatically be placed under the same regulatory regime as, say, pharmaceuticals (or whatever). In fact I think it's more likely that it will be placed under a regulatory regime similar to that of tobacco; i.e. it will be permitted to contain substances, and have health effects, that a pharmaceutical or a food product could never get away with. And even that assumes that the FDA will regulate weed in the first place.... the FDA doesn't regulate everything, there are already various types of food and drugs that are outside their authority (meat and poultry, liquor, veterinary pharmaceuticals, etc.), so it's conceivable that legalized marijuana could be placed under the regulation of a different agency altogether. Bottom line, though, it's ridiculous to say that "weed could never get FDA approval", because the laws defining the standards by which the FDA would evaluate/regulate weed haven't even been written yet.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks